Big Investors Don’t Get What Bitcoin Was Meant to Be

As the cryptocurrency landscape matures, Bitcoin remains one of the most debated innovations of the 21st century. Initially designed as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, Bitcoin was intended to disrupt finance by making it possible for anyone to transact directly without intermediaries. Yet, Bitcoin’s trajectory since Satoshi Nakamoto’s famous 2008 white paper has diverged significantly from that vision. Today, many influential figures and major corporations, such as BlackRock’s Larry Fink and MicroStrategy’s Michael Saylor, have embraced Bitcoin as a “store of value,” championing BTC as the new “digital gold.” But beneath the layers of high-profile advocacy, there’s a disconnect between what Bitcoin was meant to be and what it’s becoming.

One player standing apart from this narrative is Bitcoin SV (BSV). Positioned as a blockchain that most faithfully aligns with Satoshi’s original protocol, BSV represents an underdog in the world of crypto – a version of Bitcoin that prioritises usability, scalability, and accessibility. Here’s why BSV, and not BTC, might be closer to what Bitcoin was meant to achieve and how big investors are missing the bigger picture on blockchain’s real value.

BTC: The “Digital Gold” Fallacy

BTC, the most widely recognised version of Bitcoin, is frequently promoted as “digital gold,” a scarce asset whose primary purpose is to be held for future gain rather than used as a transactional currency. The term has been popularised by influential figures like Michael Saylor, who advocates for BTC as a hedge against inflation and a modern store of wealth. The issue here is that BTC, in its current form, lacks functionality beyond speculation. Its high fees, slow transaction times, and network limitations make it impractical for everyday transactions.

This “store of value” argument relies heavily on the assumption that scarcity alone creates worth – a concept rooted in Austrian economics but one that disregards the fact that value is generally linked to usability. Real-world examples like Solana and Ethereum have demonstrated that active networks with thriving ecosystems tend to command sustainable growth. Conversely, BTC’s narrow focus on scarcity fails to consider its utility. While BTC proponents frequently claim Bitcoin’s success is measured in the number of people “holding” it, the original design was aimed at facilitating secure, efficient, and low-cost digital transactions.

Why BSV Aligns with Satoshi’s Original Vision

Bitcoin SV offers an alternative path forward, closely aligned with Satoshi’s original white paper vision of Bitcoin as “peer-to-peer electronic cash.” BSV addresses many of BTC’s core weaknesses by expanding its block size to enable high transaction volumes, dramatically reducing fees, and facilitating instant, reliable transactions. This scalability model means that BSV could handle not only micropayments but also large-scale commercial transactions, making it a viable competitor to established payment systems.

BSV’s proponents argue that without true utility, no digital asset can sustain long-term value. Vinny Lingham , a South African entrepreneur and an early Bitcoin adopter, echoes this sentiment. He explains that the real value in any blockchain network stems from its utility. BSV’s technical alignment with Satoshi’s original Bitcoin vision makes it the only Bitcoin variant with the infrastructural capacity to become a global payment network – something BTC’s scaling limitations will never allow. BSV's capacity to handle massive volumes at low fees attracts developers and enterprises looking to build sustainable, cost-effective applications, unlike the bottlenecked BTC network that imposes high fees and delays.

The Rise of Investors Who Miss the Point

Mainstream investors like Larry Fink and Michael Saylor, despite their influence, seem to miss this critical point. They view BTC as a digital asset equivalent to gold but fail to recognise that Bitcoin’s fundamental purpose was as a transactional network, not merely an asset to hold. Fink, Saylor, and others are swayed by narratives perpetuated by BTC maximalists, viewing Bitcoin as a kind of digital commodity to secure wealth against currency depreciation. Yet, blockchain technology was never designed solely for speculative holding – it was built for functionality and direct exchange.

In advocating for BTC as a store of value, these investors misunderstand the essential mechanics of blockchain technology. They treat Bitcoin as a static asset, misunderstanding that its worth is intrinsically linked to its function as a secure, efficient payment network. Fink’s BlackRock and Saylor’s MicroStrategy hold significant BTC positions based on speculation, not on understanding the technical possibilities of blockchain. Their approach has influenced many, but it’s a short-term view that overlooks Bitcoin’s potential as a global digital cash system.

The BTC vs. BSV Paradigm Shift

BTC’s scaling solutions, such as the Lightning Network, are often touted as ways to address its limitations. However, these solutions are complex and create a reliance on “off-chain” transactions, diminishing decentralisation and bypassing the primary chain, which could compromise security. The Lightning Network, for example, shifts fees away from miners and complicates transaction traceability. BSV, on the other hand, is a “Layer 1” blockchain solution that doesn’t rely on external layers for scalability. Instead, it continuously scales its main chain to support massive transaction volumes, which is not only efficient but also aligns with Satoshi’s vision of an all-encompassing, self-sustaining network.

As Lingham points out, BTC’s reliance on speculative value rather than utility is reminiscent of “greater fool theory.” BTC continues to rise in price largely because investors believe others will buy at higher prices. But as seen in previous asset bubbles, a lack of intrinsic value can ultimately destabilise an asset’s long-term viability. In contrast, BSV’s utility-focused model positions it as a robust and adaptable network that can support real-world usage and adoption on a mass scale.

The Future of Bitcoin and the Need for Utility

BSV is an undervalued asset, not because it lacks potential but because the crypto world has largely followed a narrative that favours BTC’s status as “digital gold.” The future of Bitcoin lies not in scarcity alone but in creating a system where people and businesses can interact seamlessly. Bitcoin SV is uniquely positioned to fulfil this role, not by promising endless price gains but by delivering practical utility that can redefine industries.

Investors like Fink and Saylor wield enormous influence, yet they appear to have missed the essence of blockchain. The crypto space has reached a point where speculation has overshadowed practicality, and BTC’s rise as a “store of value” rather than a functional network could be a costly mistake. Bitcoin SV, with its scalable infrastructure and alignment with Satoshi’s initial design, represents a glimpse into what Bitcoin might achieve if it stays true to its original promise of peer-to-peer electronic cash.

Conclusion

As blockchain continues to develop, the Bitcoin community must decide whether it wants to fulfil Satoshi’s vision or merely satisfy speculative appetites. BTC’s digital gold narrative has its allure, but it lacks the practicality that global adoption demands. In contrast, Bitcoin SV stands as a genuine embodiment of Bitcoin’s foundational purpose, focusing on scalability, low-cost transactions, and real-world utility. As the divide between BTC and BSV becomes clearer, it’s worth considering that the future of Bitcoin may not lie in scarcity alone, but in providing a usable, accessible, and scalable global payment network.